D.Mass.: Four-month delay in searching lawfully seized cell phone here not unreasonable

Four month delay in searching cell phones after lawfully seizing them was not unreasonable. “Defendant relies primarily on United States v. Smith, a Second Circuit case. … There, in assessing whether a thirty-one day delay between police seizing a tablet and obtaining a search warrant for that tablet was reasonable, the Second Circuit considered four factors: “(1) the length of the delay, (2) the importance of the seized property to the defendant, (3) whether the defendant had a reduced property interest in the seized items, and (4) the strength of the state’s justification for the delay.” United States v. Smith, 967 F.3d 198, 206 (2d Cir. 2020). As it has before, see United States v. Berroa, …, the Court finds the general analytical framework employed by the Second Circuit instructive. Accordingly, it will generally consider the Smith factors in assessing whether the four-month delay at issue here was reasonable.” United States v. Jones, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191625 (D. Mass. Oct. 22, 2024).

Plaintiff stated a claim where he plausibly alleged the officer pulled a gun on him and threatened to shoot him for asking for the officer’s name and badge number. Watson v. Boyd, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26478 (8th Cir. Oct. 21, 2024).*

None of the individual defendants has standing to challenge corporate search warrants. United States v. Bartlett, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190926 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2024).*

One search warrant led to another. The fact the first one didn’t produce a prosecutable case doesn’t mean the second lacked probable cause. State v. Combs, 2024 W. Va. LEXIS 429 (Oct. 22, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Excessive force, Probable cause, Standing, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.